OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot

I think this problem is more material than the assumption of a benign
fall-back behavior in the face of a non-conformant document.  It seems that
some ODF consumers are fussier about their requirement for schema and
specification conformance than others (since the problem Doug Mahugh
mentions is not a matter of foreign element/attribute treatment), and we
should not presume how they will provide graceful degradation.  

On the other hand, if the automatic-correction option Doug mentions keeps
the specification in proper form, maybe we should use the one that Word 2007
SP2 produces, once it ships.  I am assuming, of course, that there are not
new problems with other processors being able to consume that generation of
the specification document correctly (that is, turnaround back to the
processor that originally created the document file works properly and might
even avoid regeneration of the bug in further revisions.

 - Dennis 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 01:11
To: Doug Mahugh
Cc: OpenDocument Mailing List
Subject: Re: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot

Hi Doug,

thanks for pointing this out. It seems no one noticed that before.

I agree that an automatic style that we reference within content.xml 
should be defined there rather than only in the styles.xml, but I don't 
think we are actually requesting this. Maybe we should? Do you have a 
suggestion what text we should add where?

So, this seems to be an issue in the category of an editorial error that 
we should correct before we send out the specification for public 
review, but nothing severe. The worst thing that can happen is that the 
specification date is displayed with a default style rather than the 
style we are defining in styles.xml. Nothing that in any way changes the 
meaning of anything in the specification.

Best regards


On 04/19/09 18:43, Doug Mahugh wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Thanks for putting together the summary, that's very helpful.
> FYI, I've noticed a problem in the rev05 draft
d01-rev05.odt) that I think needs some attention.  I believe the document
uses one style in a way which isn't conformant to the spec.
> The date style named N106 is defined in the office:automatic-styles
section of styles.xml.  It's then referenced by the footer style named
"Footer" in the office:master-styles section of styles.xml, which is fine.
> The style N106 is not defined in the office:automatic-styles section of
content.xml, but nonetheless it is referenced in the body of the document
within content.xml.  The style N106 is applied to the date of the draft
which appears on the first page of the document.  Here's the markup:
>   <text:date style:data-style-name="N106"
text:date-value="2009-02-12T10:40:01" text:fixed="true"
text:date-adjust="PT96H00M00S">16 February 2009</text:date>
> The root of content.xml is office:document-content, of course, and the
spec has the same sentence about the content of office:document-content in
both Section 2.1 (Document Roots) of ODF 1.1 and Section
(<office:document-content>) of the current draft of ODF 1.2:
>   "The <office:document-content> root element contains document content
and automatic styles used in the content."
> N106 is an automatic style used in the content, so it seems to me that
this draft is not conformant with the spec on this matter.
> I ran into this when I tried to open this draft in Word 2007 SP2.  I'm
running the version we'll be releasing shortly, which has ODF 1.1 support,
and it identifies the problem and offers to repair it so that the document
will be fully conformant to the spec.
> I'm sure we all agree that the drafts we're sending out should be
conformant to the standard.  Can we make sure that this is cleaned up in
future drafts that we send out for review?
> Thanks,
> Doug
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM [mailto:Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:24 AM
> To: OpenDocument Mailing List
> Subject: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot
> Dear TC Members,
> Patrick and I have uploaded a series of PDF 1.2 part 1 drafts in the
> last couple of days. While the upload of each draft was supplemented
> with the information what has been changed, I anyway thought it may be
> reasonable to summarize the changes in a single mail.
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 rev 04
> -----------------------------------------
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00024.html
> This draft has been prepared by Patrick. The changes that he made
> compared to the previous draft are marked by change tracking information.
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 rev 05
> -----------------------------------------
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00030.html
> This draft equals the rev04 draft, except that the automatic generated
> content has been updated, and that an error on the title page was
> corrected. The automatic generated content is marked with an orange
> background color. The change tracking information from the rev05 draft
> has been accepted.
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 rev 06
> -----------------------------------------
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00042.html
> This draft equals the rev05 draft, except that the already approved
> document conformance classes proposal has been integrated, and that the
> contributors list was updated. The changes compared to draft 5 again are
> marked using change tracking information.
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 schema rev 05
> ------------------------------------------------
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00031.html
> This is a slightly modified schema, where empty attribute value
> definitions have been replaces with an <ref name="string"/>.
> Committee Draft 02 Ballot Candidates
> ------------------------------------
> The candidates for a Committee Draft 2 Ballot are
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 rev 06
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00042.html
> together with
> ODF 1.2 part 1 committee draft 1.0 schema rev 05
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00031.html
> Out of the rev04, rev05 and rev06 drafts, the most changes have been
> made to the rev04. If you have reviewed the rev04 draft, then it is
> sufficient to review the automatic generated content in the rev05 draft
> (or some instances of it), and the few marked changes in the rev06 draft.
> I suggest that we conduct a seven day e-mail ballot for
> Committee Draft 02. This would mean that we in the call on Monday would 
> agree to conduct this ballot electronically rather than having a 
> Committee Draft ballot itself. This procedure would give all of us more 
> than a week to continue the review of the drafts, and it further 
> simplifies conducting the vote. This again will allow us to spend more 
> time in the next call on public comments.
> Best regards
> Michael

Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]